You say "GMO" as if it's a bad thing.
Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
But is there any evidence of gene sharing between biological kingdoms in nature? Why can't an animal and a plant create an offspring that shares both of their genetic information? There's clearly lack of a mechanism for fish-tomato sex but evolution is known to create very elegant mechanisms for things that are beneficial.
Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't.
EDIT: I'm not allowed to comment on the response below? So, here it is...
> Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion?
Clearly I was unaware this happens at all in nature which is why I asked if it happens. Horizontal Gene Transfer is fascinating. However, it's been around since the beginning but sexual reproduction supplanted it as the preferred method of gene sharing as the complexity of organisms increased.
Yes. Horizontal gene transfer can operate between different kingdoms (or, more relevantly to how life is usually divided these days, between the three phylogenetic domains of archaea, bacteria, and eukaryota.)
> Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't.
Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion?
> An early tomato was developed that contained an antifreeze gene (afa3) from the winter flounder with the aim of increasing the tomato's tolerance to frost, which became an icon in the early years of the debate over genetically modified foods, especially in relation to the perceived ethical dilemma of combining genes from different species as the tomato gained the moniker fish tomato.[18] The antifreeze protein was found to inhibit ice recrystallization in the flounder blood, but had no effect when expressed in transgenic tobacco.[19] The resulting tomato was never commercialized, possibly because the transgenic plant did not perform well in its frost-tolerance or other agronomic characteristics
Helpful characteristics approaching commercial reality involve nothing of the kind such as the recent StAs1 and StAs2 Simplot potato or the AquAdvantage salmon opAFP-GHc2 construct.
Apparently fish tomatoes do exist, but have never been on the market.
Its not. Not that its his field or anything, but I suspect Tyson has educated himself somewhat on it before making that statement, and it certainly matches what I've learned from direct contact from people working in the field.
> Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
We don't cross tomatoes with deep sea fish; we might take genes from deep sea fish (or some other similarly distant species) and insert them into tomatoes, but then, one of the ways that the genetic changes occur that natural and artificial selection both work on is horizontal gene transfer between species (including ones that are very far apart on the tree/web of life), so this is not as fundamentally different from what goes on in traditional breeding as many people seem to think.
If you don't mind me asking, how far apart does this happen in nature? How many genes have made if from fish into plants?
It is bad, and GMO consumers should be aware of that.
Given that I rather not ingest crops modified to resist poison, I just pass on all GMOs.
Do you really think that is reasonable for anyone?
From what I've read of this product, it doesn't contain excess anything by design. So it likely isn't problematic, but as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed.
Yes.
First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok").
Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes.
> as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed
This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to.
TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.
I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects
The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
> Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example.
> Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease.
So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive.
The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link:
> Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.
The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote:
> First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok").
Emphasis added.